News

Comcast Lawsuit May Proceed Per Washington Judge

Consumer Protection
Washington takes on Comcast's near-worthless service plan

A Washington judge has refused to dismiss the state's $100 million lawsuit against Comcast over its Service Protection Plan — allowing the deceptive-practices case to move forward on behalf of consumers.

There are all kinds of ways that big businesses rip off their customers, and Billshark wants to alert you to as many as we can. Often the deception is hidden under such amorphous—and seemingly innocuous—tags as “service fee” or “service protection plan.”

1 How Comcast's Service Protection Plan Misled Customers

Case in point: In August of last year, the state of Washington sued cable giant Comcast for what it alleged was the deceptive practice of offering a Service Protection Plan (SPP)—at a cost of $4.99 a month—that, in fact, covered very little. It says that, although the plan covered the cost of a service technician’s visit, it does not cover “any actual repairs relating to customer equipment.”

For his part, Ferguson termed the SPP “near-worthless” and said the state’s investigation revealed that 75% of the time Comcast representatives followed a Comcast script that told its employees to say the SPP covered “wiring inside your home,” when in fact it doesn’t. The suit claims more than 500,000 customers were “misled.”

Ferguson also alleged that Comcast misled customers by telling them the SPP covered repairs outside of the home, when customers are already exempt from having to pay for such exterior repairs.

“This case is a classic example of a big corporation deceiving its customers for financial gain,” Ferguson said.

2 The Judge Lets the Lawsuit Proceed

On December 23, a King County (WA) Superior Court judge rejected Comcast’s Motion To Dismiss (MTD) the Washington lawsuit.

Comcast had sought dismissal on the grounds that Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson had failed to “demonstrate violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and in fact acknowledges that our customers have saved millions of dollars in avoided service charges with our Service Protection Plan.”

“The court correctly rejected Comcast’s attempt to evade responsibility for deceiving its customers,” Ferguson said. “Washington consumers deserve their day in court.”

3 What the Lawsuit Seeks — and Why It Matters

If the $100 million lawsuit is successful, it could open the door to other similar suits nationwide, because this plan isn’t just specific to Washington state, but is offered throughout the country in areas where Comcast is located.

Another part of the suit relates to Comcast’s practice of requiring a deposit on equipment which they say is waived if the customer allows Comcast to conduct a credit check and the check reveals they have good credit. Ferguson alleges that more than 6,000 times, Washington customers with high credit scores were still required to pay a deposit, or that those who paid a deposit still had their credit checked. Such unnecessary checks can negatively impact customers credit scores.

The lawsuit is seeking $73 million to pay back payments to customers who paid for the SPP, and removal of the improper credit checks from customers credit reports. It’s also seeking up to $2,000 for each instance of a violation of the state’s Consumer Protection Act.

Watch this space for further updates on the outcome of this case. Meanwhile, let Billshark help you find ways such as this to save on your bills.

Share:
Billshark · Bill Negotiation Experts
Helping consumers and small businesses stop overpaying on recurring bills.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Comcast's Service Protection Plan, and why is Washington suing over it?

The Service Protection Plan (SPP) is a $4.99-a-month add-on. Washington sued Comcast in August, alleging the plan was deceptive because it covered the cost of a service technician's visit but did not cover any actual repairs relating to customer equipment. Attorney General Bob Ferguson called the SPP "near-worthless," claiming more than 500,000 customers were misled about what the plan actually paid for.

What did the Washington judge decide about the Comcast lawsuit?

On December 23, a King County (WA) Superior Court judge rejected Comcast's Motion To Dismiss the Washington lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed. Comcast had argued the state failed to demonstrate violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Ferguson said the court correctly rejected Comcast's attempt to evade responsibility, adding that Washington consumers deserve their day in court.

How did Comcast representatives describe the SPP to customers?

According to Ferguson, the state's investigation found that 75% of the time, Comcast representatives followed a Comcast script telling employees to say the SPP covered "wiring inside your home," when in fact it doesn't. Comcast was also alleged to have told customers the plan covered repairs outside the home, even though customers are already exempt from paying for those exterior repairs.

What does the lawsuit say about Comcast's credit checks and deposits?

The suit alleges Comcast requires an equipment deposit that is supposedly waived if a customer allows a credit check showing good credit. Ferguson claims that more than 6,000 times, Washington customers with high credit scores were still required to pay a deposit, or were credit-checked even after paying one. Such unnecessary checks can negatively impact customers' credit scores.

What is the lawsuit seeking, and could it affect customers in other states?

The $100 million lawsuit seeks $73 million in back payments for customers who paid for the SPP, removal of the improper credit checks from credit reports, and up to $2,000 for each violation of the state's Consumer Protection Act. Because the plan is offered throughout the country wherever Comcast operates, a successful case could open the door to similar suits nationwide.

Save on the Bills You Just Read About

Billshark negotiates your bills for you — no savings, no fee.

Estimate My Savings

Comcast Lawsuit May Proceed Per Washington Judge page context

Comcast Lawsuit May Proceed Per Washington Judge is a Billshark resource with information and navigation relevant to recurring bills, consumer choices, and savings decisions.

Washington's $100M Comcast lawsuit over the Service Protection Plan can proceed after a judge denied dismissal. See what it means and how to save now.

Visitors can use this page to review Billshark information and continue to the route that best matches their savings, support, or account needs.

Billshark publishes this information to help visitors understand monthly expenses, provider choices, and practical next steps.

The page connects visitors with related Billshark resources when they need additional detail or a more specific next step.

A Washington judge has refused to dismiss the state's $100 million lawsuit against Comcast over its Service Protection Plan — allowing the deceptive-practices case to move forward on behalf of consumers.

There are all kinds of ways that big businesses rip off their customers, and Billshark wants to alert you to as many as we can.

Case in point.

For his part.

Ferguson also alleged that Comcast misled customers by telling them the SPP covered repairs outside of the home, when customers are already exempt from having to pay for such exterior repairs.

On December 23, a King County (WA) Superior Court judge rejected Comcast’s Motion To Dismiss (MTD) the Washington lawsuit.

Comcast had sought dismissal on the grounds that Washington’s Attorney General Bob Ferguson had failed to “demonstrate violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

“The court correctly rejected Comcast’s attempt to evade responsibility for deceiving its customers,” Ferguson said.

If the $100 million lawsuit is successful.

Another part of the suit relates to Comcast’s practice of requiring a deposit on equipment which they say is waived if the customer allows Comcast to conduct a credit check and the check reveals.

The lawsuit is seeking $73 million to pay back payments to customers who paid for the SPP, and removal of the improper credit checks from customers credit reports.

Watch this space for further updates on the outcome of this case.

The Service Protection Plan (SPP) is a $4.99-a-month add-on.

On December 23, a King County (WA) Superior Court judge rejected Comcast's Motion To Dismiss the Washington lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed.

According to Ferguson, the state's investigation found that 75% of the time, Comcast representatives followed a Comcast script telling employees to say the SPP covered "wiring inside your home," when in fact it doesn't.

The suit alleges Comcast requires an equipment deposit that is supposedly waived if a customer allows a credit check showing good credit.

The $100 million lawsuit seeks $73 million in back payments for customers who paid for the SPP.

Billshark negotiates your bills for you — no savings, no fee.

Billshark helps lower internet, wireless, cable, satellite radio, and other monthly bills.

Our experts handle providers for customers and share updates throughout the process.

Customers pay only when Billshark finds savings on eligible bills.

1 How Comcast's Service Protection Plan Misled Customers.

2 The Judge Lets the Lawsuit Proceed.

3 What the Lawsuit Seeks — and Why It Matters.

Frequently Asked Questions.

What is Comcast's Service Protection Plan, and why is Washington suing over it?.

What did the Washington judge decide about the Comcast lawsuit?.

How did Comcast representatives describe the SPP to customers?.

What does the lawsuit say about Comcast's credit checks and deposits?.

What is the lawsuit seeking, and could it affect customers in other states?.

Stop Losing Money: Smart Tips to Keep More Cash.

Will Trump's FCC Chair Neuter Net Neutrality?.

Comcast Legal Setback: Impact on Consumer Rights.

Speed Test Your Internet Device Here.

Senate Demands Answers from Sneaky Cable Companies.

6 Hidden Ways You're Losing Money (and How to Stop).

T-Mobile Staff Pressured to Add Services: Key Facts.

22 States Fight for Net Neutrality and Internet Freedom.

Sean Talks Money: 10 Wallet Tips for the Year.

Save on the Bills You Just Read About.

All Negotiation Services.

Corporate / Business Billing.

Blog - All Categories.

Savings Tips Stop Losing Money: Smart Tips to Keep More Cash Steven McKean · Jan 22, 2018 · 3 min read Read article.

Politics Will Trump's FCC Chair Neuter Net Neutrality?.

News Comcast Legal Setback: Impact on Consumer Rights Carolyn Depoto · Nov 1, 2017 · 1 min read Read article.

Internet Speed Test Your Internet Device Here Brian Keaney · Feb 14, 2017 · 7 min read Read article.

Cable Senate Demands Answers from Sneaky Cable Companies Michel Mora · Oct 26, 2017 · 2 min read Read article.

Savings Tips 6 Hidden Ways You're Losing Money (and How to Stop) Carolyn Depoto · Mar 2, 2018 · 4 min read Read article.

News T-Mobile Staff Pressured to Add Services: Key Facts Brian Keaney · Jan 17, 2017 · 3 min read Read article.

News 22 States Fight for Net Neutrality and Internet Freedom Carolyn Depoto · Jan 17, 2018 · 2 min read Read article.

Home Budgeting & Finance Sean Talks Money: 10 Wallet Tips for the Year Steven McKean · Dec 30, 2016 · 4 min read Read article.

See more posts for other categories ›.

Estimate My Savings.

College tuition articles.

Entertainment articles.

NerdWallet articles.

Shark Tank articles.

Social media articles.

Uncategorized articles.

Fairpoint bill savings.

Spectrum bill savings.

Terminix bill savings.

This resource helps readers connect a recurring-cost question with the Billshark information that provides the most relevant detail.

Visitors can review the available page sections, compare related topics, and continue to a more specific guide when they need additional context.

Billshark organizes service information and educational resources to make common household-bill decisions easier to research and understand.

The information on this page supports practical questions about providers, subscriptions, account actions, consumer choices, and monthly costs.

Readers can use the navigation and related resources to move from a broad question into focused information that matches their situation.

The page is intended to support informed decisions by pairing concise explanations with paths to deeper Billshark resources.

Relevant links help visitors compare options, understand recurring charges, and identify the next action that fits their current need.

Billshark content is designed to help consumers recognize recurring expenses and consider practical ways to manage them more effectively.

Visitors can return to this resource when they need to compare a new question with earlier information about services, bills, or savings.

The content connects everyday provider and subscription choices with broader guidance about monthly budgeting and household expenses.

Each page section contributes context that helps readers decide whether they need service guidance, account support, or an educational article.

Readers can use the available information to prepare questions, review options, and continue toward a useful next step at their own pace.

Billshark maintains connected resources so visitors can discover related guidance without losing the context of their original question.

The route supports research by making it easier to identify relevant details before choosing a provider, service, subscription, or account action.

Practical consumer information can help visitors understand why recurring charges change and which details are useful to review before responding.

The page brings together information that supports clearer conversations about bills, service choices, recurring expenses, and savings opportunities.

Visitors can use related resources to compare common terms, understand tradeoffs, and find the information that best fits their monthly-cost question.

Billshark guidance focuses on practical consumer decisions and helps readers move from general awareness into a more specific resource when needed.

The resource is part of a broader collection that connects household cost questions with provider information, support materials, and educational content.

Readers can explore the page before taking action, which helps them understand available options and identify the most relevant follow-up information.

The information is organized to support comparison, continued reading, and practical next steps without requiring visitors to search unrelated topics.

Recurring bills often involve provider rules, service terms, subscriptions, or account details, and this resource helps visitors locate useful context.

Visitors can use Billshark resources to build a clearer picture of recurring costs before deciding which service, support path, or guide to open next.

Related guidance helps readers distinguish between broad consumer information and the more detailed page that addresses a specific provider or billing topic.

The page supports a research-first approach by connecting relevant information with the next available resource for deeper explanation.

Billshark publishes resources that help visitors understand recurring expenses, evaluate common choices, and continue toward an appropriate next step.

Readers can compare the page content with linked resources when they want more detail about household bills, subscriptions, services, or account actions.

The route helps visitors keep their research organized by grouping related information around practical consumer and monthly-expense questions.

just hired Billshark to lower their bill.